As French people use to say: if you don't like it, you don't need to turn off the others. I'd love such a device, if the specs are in line with my requirements. After all, I spend a lot of time setting up dual-boot, or multiple boot, on my computers for Windows and Linux. Why couldn't I do it on a smartphone, which I see as nothing but a small form-factor computer?

Then it might make sense, since you'd only be tying up the storage until you've made the decision. Microsoft gets what it wants in making it easy to try without commitment, and it's not very risky for the consumer.

I should note that there are some people out there who use hacked dual-booting Android phones, but even that is 99% because they're using a phone where the only way to get a custom OS is through the "SafeStrap" hack, which works through dual-booting. In that situation you've got one OS that you actually use, and another that sits as a useless lump on your flash storage, not contributing anything useful to the system but impossible to get rid of without breaking the whole thing. Somehow I doubt that's what they're going for here.

If there were compelling Windows Phone exclusive apps, I could possible see this being useful. I'd love to be able to dual-boot my phone into iOS to get some of the games that aren't available on Android for example. However, I can't see a big reason to need access to the Windows Phone library of programs.

I'd want this if I were engaged in shady practices and it were possible to combine this with the TrueCrypt thing where you give the authorities a password that decrypts a harmless OS image and leaves the shady secret stuff hidden.

Then it might make sense, since you'd only be tying up the storage until you've made the decision. Microsoft gets what it wants in making it easy to try without commitment, and it's not very risky for the consumer.

Also, there probably actually are quite a few people asking the question "What phone OS should I go for?" then they make a decision that they are stuck with.So really, no one in the world is asking the question of what phone OS they should get? No one?

I don't think they actually plan on having customers change OSes on any regular basis. Dual-Boot from the factory in this case really means they can ship one device, and you choose which OS you want on first startup. (With the possible option to switch, sure, but no one will.)

If Microsoft is offering money to handset makers I can see this being smart - The handset maker doesn't have to release a device that is unlikely to sell due to limited OS support, Microsoft gets to crow about how many devices that it's OS has shipped on, and the user gets a slightly cheaper device. Only real downside is a bit of storage space that's unusable because of the unused OS.

Couldn't this be useful for people trying to develop apps for multiple systems/OSs?

Quote:

While I'm not completely unimaginative—this kind of device might be quite useful for, say, software developers who want testbed phones—I can't help but feel that this is a solution that essentially nobody wants.

Honestly, this is one of those silly efforts that 0.01% (basically *some*of the people reading Arstechnica) of people care about.

But it does NOTHING for the average customer except increase confusion. People want nice looking devices that "just work" and have a wealthy ecosystem.

Dual booting a phone is just a silly "bragging rights" feature that is just a waste of R&D's time and resources. How many people really need to juggle multiple mobile operating systems at the same time?

To me, it just sings that OEMs are running out of ways to differentiate themselves.

Given how much they're spending on surreptitious product placement all over prime time TV I'm surprised they've got the budget left. They should follow the old Soviet doctrine "Never reinforce failure".

Couldn't this be useful for people trying to develop apps for multiple systems/OSs?

Quote:

While I'm not completely unimaginative—this kind of device might be quite useful for, say, software developers who want testbed phones—I can't help but feel that this is a solution that essentially nobody wants.

Then it might make sense, since you'd only be tying up the storage until you've made the decision. Microsoft gets what it wants in making it easy to try without commitment, and it's not very risky for the consumer.

The major problem with that is that the OEM is out the cost of the Windows Phone license for no return value if consumers don't even choose to use it.

I love having my work laptop dual boot: a locked down enterprise-ized Win7 partition for when I need VPN access and other corporate resources, and a Xubuntu partition for actually getting science and data processing done with a BioLinux-like suite of applications. I can see the utility in a phone that does the same thing for a certain subset of users.

Edit: I'm not sure what the down vote was for, but I should note that I have IT's support for the system I've set up. I'm one of a small subset of employees with superuser rights because we've proven ourselves to be capable and responsible with this privilege.

Also, there probably actually are quite a few people asking the question "What phone OS should I go for?" then they make a decision that they are stuck with.So really, no one in the world is asking the question of what phone OS they should get? No one?

Based on the stats I've seen not too many are asking "Do I want a Windows phone?"

No, it allows people to try Windows Phone without being committed to it, which is good for consumers, since it probably won't add any cost to the phone for the manufacturer, although you lose out on a bit of space, but hopefully it will come with an SD card slot.

It's a good marketing thing because consumers can try Windows Phone without being forced to buy a Windows Phone only device, which is something some people might actually find a nice option.

I'd like to know just what you do with your phone ? I just make calls,and text sometimes.

Mean doesn't mean I'm making a production device out of a phone. Got to be a status set of software,interopability,compatability etc . . Connect the phone to a desktop monitor with a dock ,using the USB ,.. or whatever ?

Use two operating systems . Good question but still not much to go on.

Don't you just love setting up your smartphone? Entering account details, downloading apps, putting all the settings just the way you like them? Isn't this experience so wonderful that you want to do it twice?

I remember hearing about dual boot phones just before BOYD became a thing. The intention was to have a hard separation between work and personal stuff. The original concern isn't too much of a problem now that some work-controlled apps can remotely wipe a personal phone. (not that I particularly like that approach)

But it just doesn't make any sense in this context. Why different OSes with completely different apps and UIs to learn. This feels like a move of desperation from MS.

Also, there probably actually are quite a few people asking the question "What phone OS should I go for?" then they make a decision that they are stuck with.So really, no one in the world is asking the question of what phone OS they should get? No one?

Based on the stats I've seen not too many are asking "Do I want a Windows phone?"

You mean they don't want to commit to buying a Windows phone because they don't know if they would like it, and want to stick with what they know, e.g. Android?So in that case, if you could have both and then choose one... maybe that would answer the question.You are looking at stats which come after the decision of what to buy has been made. People choose Android because they know it. That doesn't mean they aren't asking the question before they choose Android...

I love having my work laptop dual boot: a locked down enterprise-ized Win7 partition for when I need VPN access and other corporate resources, and a Xubuntu partition for actually getting science and data processing done with a BioLinux-like suite of applications. I can see the utility in a phone that does the same thing for a certain subset of users.

Not that this is necessarily an option endusers would have, but wouldn't it make more sense (both from a practicality and usability standpoint) to have the locked-down enterprise portion of the phone run in a virtual environment that can be completely isolated from the rest of the phone? It's more secure, as the virtual machine would only have access to the parts of the phone it is allowed, and it's better for users because the two environments are quick and easy to switch between and if they leave the company or otherwise need to have their corporate data wiped, they can do so without losing all their non-work stuff.